Climate and energy

Morning! A little news. Reminder: Today is the official fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

International wind scene. China boosts its wind production goal to 10% by 2010 (WSJournal). Ouch! My ears are now ringing from the screams of U.S. wind developers, who are in competition for these same precious turbines. China still relies mostly on imported turbines and components, as does the U.S. (That strikes me as a hole in the market. Holes in markets need to be filled. Right? RIGHT?) Quotable:

More worrying, even its booming domestic industry still completely relies on imports of key wind-turbine components, especially ball bearings. That means China’s appetite will just add pressure to already-stretched global supply chains, likely increasing turbine prices and thus capital costs for new wind farms everywhere.

Kansas and coal. Double whammy from the WSJ this a.m. They have joined the interested circles of out-of-state Kansas watchers. Sadly… you can’t read the article unless you have an online Wall Street Journal subscription! I hate hate hate that. Bless their hearts. I’m not even sure how long that link will be live, but the title of the article is “Kansan Stokes Energy Squabble With Coal Ruling,” and it is written by Stephen Power.

Scientific uncertainty and carbon. A word, here, before the news. An editorial word. Some folks seem to expect science to have all the answers. This drives me a little nuts. Whatever out there might have all the answers, I truly doubt that source is human in nature. Instead, I expect science to ask questions. And keep asking questions. And to be skeptical. If science didn’t leave room for debate, if it turned everything into fixed and certain dogma, I wouldn’t trust it. All I want is enough reliably gathered information for the rest of us to get a better understanding of potential risks that our actions (or inactions) might pose to the environment, and ultimately also our own survival.

So the following is cause for more questions, not panic or dismissal – two new studies suggest that the world might need to cut its emissions much further and faster than previously expected, in order to avert precipitous impact from climate change (Washington Post).

What’s a helpful way to sort out that information? On one hand, these studies involve very long time frames. That’s a lot of variables, and a lot of uncertainty. On the other hand, previous climate modeling has proven to be too conservative – actual observed climate variations (average temperature, sea ice melt, etc.) during the past few years have proven to be far more dramatic than the models projected back in 1996.

So. It’s all about risk assessment, management, and prevention. Which ultimately places the burden on you to decide. Not scientists. It’s about you – and your relationship with your policymakers.

Speaking of politicians and scientists – what the…? The EPA is already embroiled in a staff v. leadership controversy over regulating carbon dioxide emissions from transportation sources. Now Rep. Waxman – remember him? After he questioned RUS funding for coal-fired power plants in rural areas with taxpayer money, the program was suspended for 2008 and 2009 – he is now investigating White House involvement in scuttling CAFE standards two years ago (Detroit News). CAFE standards (short for Corporate Average Fuel Economy) measure fuel economy, or miles per gallon, for automobiles and light trucks. They were originally implemented during the oil embargo crises of the 1970s. The measurement represents the average fuel economy of a manufacturers’ entire fleet of vehicles, although many large vehicles such as SUVs are exempt.

Also, US Fish and Wildlife is catching major flak for delaying – for whatever reasons – the listing of the polar bear as an endangered species (Blomberg).

Wolf Creek. The Wolf Creek nuclear power plant (1,166 megawatts generating capacity) is currently shut down for about a month, apparently for a routine refueling (Reuters). According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the refueling process is a procedure where the plant removes “uranium-bearing fuel elements that have been used at commercial nuclear reactors and that are no longer producing enough energy to sustain a nuclear reaction. Once the spent fuel is removed from the reactor the fission process has stopped, but the spent fuel assemblies still generate significant amounts of radiation and heat.” The NRC notes that “periodically, about one-third of the nuclear fuel in an operating reactor needs to be unloaded and replaced with fresh fuel.”

I think something like only 5% of the uranium is used, 95% is still left, just not in a state that the plants can use to generate electricity. The remaining fuel is then stored in cooling pools of water on site, although some sites do use a new form of dry storage.

Believe it or not. Last – and I can’t believe I am actually going to say this – here is a really fascinating article about the carbon footprint of cement (CSMonitor). Quotable: “Roughly 5 to 10 percent of global CO2 emissions are related to the manufacture and transportation of cement, a major ingredient of concrete.”

(Glad I didn’t know that, before my husband redid the pad in front of the garage…)

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org